MURDERDEATHKILL

[ThudMaker]

Does anyone remember the Frank Reich led comeback by the Buffalo Bills against the Houston Oilers? The Pats have every right to run the score up. At some point they will be hit with the injury bug. Perhaps not this year, but it will happen. They will be shown no mercy and I'm all for that, too.

[bbl]

If they're not trying to score, they're not playing the game they way it was meant to be played. I can understand eating up the clock to protect a narrow lead as a tactic, but in a blowout, it's just plain stupid...

The object is to win the game. Teams play to win. That's the only way it's meant to be played. To win.

So why is running down the clock to preserve a win "plain stupid" when a team has a big lead? When your opponent is down by a lot, time is the most valuable commodity your opponent has. So why is it "plain stupid" to burn the clock and to take away from your opponent the only chance they have to win?

[coyote-1]

And that's exactly what the Pats did by not going for the field goal that would have made it 45-10; instead, they got the first down and kept the clock moving.

The object is to win the game. Teams play to win. That's the only way it's meant to be played. To win. So why is running down the clock to preserve a win "plain stupid" when a team has a big lead? When your opponent is down by a lot, time is the most valuable commodity your opponent has. So why is it "plain stupid" to burn the clock and to take away from your opponent the only chance they have to win?

[bholder]

Does anyone remember the Frank Reich led comeback by the Buffalo Bills against the Houston Oilers? The Pats have every right to run the score up. At some point they will be hit with the injury bug. Perhaps not this year, but it will happen. They will be shown no mercy and I'm all for that, too.

 

 

Yeah, I remember that game, one of the most exciting I've ever watched. It would not have been interesting had the Oilers or the Bills played the way some here are saying is the way the game should be played.

[bholder]

The object is to win the game. Teams play to win. That's the only way it's meant to be played. To win. So why is running down the clock to preserve a win "plain stupid" when a team has a big lead? When your opponent is down by a lot, time is the most valuable commodity your opponent has. So why is it "plain stupid" to burn the clock and to take away from your opponent the only chance they have to win?

It's not fun to watch, and scoring more points is a better strategy for winning.

You guys must really like boring games.

[ThudMaker]

Yeah, I remember that game, one of the most exciting I've ever watched. It would not have been interesting had the Oilers or the Bills played the way some here are saying is the way the game should be played.

In fairness to bbl and the point he's trying to make - - if the Oilers had been able to hold on to the ball with a good run game and milk the clock, the Bills wouldn't have had enough game clock to come back from that large of a deficit.

[bholder]

In fairness to bbl and the point he's trying to make - - if the Oilers had been able to hold on to the ball with a good run game and milk the clock, the Bills wouldn't have had enough game clock to come back from that large of a deficit.

 

 

Sure, and if the Oilers had just kept doing what they were doing in the first half, they'd have kept scoring points and won.

[bbl]

You guys must really like boring games.

Personally, watching a team effectively eat the clock and win is fun. Watching my team ice the game by running for first downs, knowing that my team can run another 90+ seconds off the clock, is fun to watch.

You must think that scoring is the only thing worth watching.:wave:

P.S. Great answer, coyote-1. That's the most valid response I've seen. If a team has a great shot at getting the first down, and has an average or less-than-average defense, going for it on fourth down with a big lead can make sense.

[ThudMaker]

 

Sure, and if the Oilers had just kept doing what they were doing in the first half, they'd have kept scoring points and won.

 

Absolutely. But every incomplete pass stops the clock. It's kind of like in basketball where a team lets their opponent back in the game by sending them to the free throw line. They're scoring while the clock is stopped. Most of the time when a team has a big lead, the clock is more of the enemy than the opponent.

[bbl]

Sure, and if the Oilers had just kept doing what they were doing in the first half, they'd have kept scoring points and won.

 

 

Really?

 

Did the Oilers change their game plan in the second half? How so? And how did that cost them the game? Please tell.

[bholder]

Again, teams play to win. If a team risks losing in order to provide for a more exciting game, they're not playing to win. No, scoring more points than the opponent for 60 minutes is a better strategy for winning. How many points you score doesn't matter as long as it's more than the opponent when the clock expires. Personally, watching a team effectively eat the clock and win is fun. Watching my team ice the game by running for first downs, knowing that my team can run another 90+ seconds off the clock, is fun to watch. You must think that scoring is the only thing worth watching. :wave: P.S. Great answer, coyote-1. That's the most valid response I've seen. If a team has a great shot at getting the first down, and has an average defense, going for it on fourth down with a big lead can make sense.

I'm usually rooting for a good game more than "my" team, that's likely a large contributor to our differences in perspectives. Watching a team eat the clock is just irritating to me. I want to see the game won or lost by actual play, not by clock management.

I agree that going for it on fourth down even with a big lead can make sense, at least. That's an example of actual playing rather than clock-watching.

[bholder]

Really? Did the Oilers change their game plan in the second half? How so? And how did that cost them the game? Please tell.

 

 

Honestly, I'd have to go back and watch it again, but my recollection is that the Oilers build up a big lead and then tried to play it safe and protect the lead with these sorts of clock-management games, and ended up getting burned by them.

[ThudMaker]

I'm usually rooting for a good game more than "my" team, that's likely a large contributor to our differences in perspectives. Watching a team eat the clock is just irritating to me. I want to see the game won or lost by actual play, not by clock management. I agree that going for it on fourth down even with a big lead can make sense, at least. That's an example of actual playing rather than clock-watching.

But a power running game, such as the John Riggin's led Washington Redskins, can be a thing of beauty. There's nothing more humiliating to a defense than getting run over by a bunch of hogs while the clock is ticking down. New England isn't demoralizing anyone. They're simply pissing opponents off. They'll get theirs.

[bholder]

But a power running game, such as the John Riggin's led Washington Redskins, can be a thing of beauty. There's nothing more humiliating to a defense than getting run over by a bunch of hogs while the clock is ticking down. New England isn't demoralizing anyone. They're simply pissing opponents off. They'll get theirs.

 

 

I'm all for a power running game, great to watch, as long as they continue to try to gain yards and score rather than just piddling away the clock.

 

I was a Giants fan way back when their offense hardly threw any long passes, only occasionally threw to the tight end, and the ground game was the thing (and rarely with big runs, either). Demoralizes the hell out of an opponent when you can just push them around and reliably get at least 4 yards per play.

[bbl]

Honestly, I'd have to go back and watch it again, but my recollection is that the Oilers build up a big lead and then tried to play it safe and protect the lead with these sorts of clock-management games, and ended up getting burned by them.

Yeah, you might want to watch that again.

The Bills cut the score from 35-3 to 35-32 in a span of 6:52. It didn't have anything to do with the Oilers playing "clock-management." In fact, the Oilers only ran 4 plays during that stretch - one of those plays was a Warren Moon INT on first down.

[J.]

I'm sure the Minnesota Vikings are soooooooooo glad they got rid of Randy Moss.

[ThudMaker]

I'm sure the Minnesota Vikings are soooooooooo glad they got rid of Randy Moss.

He had no respect for anyone there. He doesn't have the same excuses at NE that he had at Minnesota and Oakland to slack on plays. Tom Brady has won enough Super Bowls as has Belichik that he has to respect them.

[King Kashue]

Mild thread rez to respond to direct personal comments...

it's KingKashue that's never really competed.

And you know this how?

What possible insight or information could you be using as a basis for this statement?

[willsellout]

Mild thread rez to respond to direct personal comments... Nice of you to misrepresent my statements... In the previous thread, I asked folks taking your position how much competitive sports they had played...I got one person saying they had played a good amount... I could just have easily had a dozen say they'd played a ton and been made to look the fool...Of course, that didn't happen ... I wonder why? And you know this how? What possible insight or information could you be using as a basis for this statement?

Well have you? Just curious.


Dan

[King Kashue]

Well have you? Just curious. Dan

 

 

As I mentioned in other threads, yes. I've played baseball since I was 8, playing in competitive leagues since about 13 and had a try out with the Atlanta Braves (which admittedly went poorly)...

 

I've also played non-youth competitive football, tennis, and rugby.